Assessing Timely Presentation to Care Among People Diagnosed with HIV During Hospital Admission: A Population-Based Study in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Timely presentation to care for people newly diagnosed with HIV is critical to optimize health outcomes and reduce onward HIV transmission. Studies describing presentation to care following diagnosis during a hospital admission are lacking. We sought to assess the timeliness of presentation to care and to identify factors associated with delayed presentation. We conducted a population-level study using health administrative databases. Participants were all individuals older than 16 and newly diagnosed with HIV during hospital admission in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2015. We used modified Poisson regression models to derive relative risk ratios for the association between sociodemographic and clinical variables and the presentation to out-patient HIV care by 90 days following hospital discharge. Among 372 patients who received a primary HIV diagnosis in hospital, 83.6% presented to care by 90 days. Following multivariable analysis, we did not find associations between patient sociodemographic or clinical characteristics and presentation to care by 90 days. In a secondary analysis of 483 patients diagnosed during hospitalization but for whom HIV was not recorded as the principal reason for admission, 73.1% presented to care by 90 days. Following multivariable adjustment, we found immigrants from countries with generalized HIV epidemics (RR 1.265, 95% CI 1.133-1.413) were more likely to present to care, whereas timely presentation was less likely for people with a mental health diagnosis (RR 0.817, 95% CI 0.742-0.898) and women (RR 0.748, 95% CI 0.559-1.001). Future work should evaluate mechanisms to facilitate presentation to care among these populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".